1; Consensus is not evidence. People once believed the earth was flat. Does this mean that every cult who ever existed is correct because there was a consensuses of their members?

2; There is not historical evidence of any one that is claimed to have ever meet jebus. How do fictional people count for consensus?

Consensus is a type of evidence, if it weren't then atheists wouldn't commonly argue that evolution is more likely true since there is a consensus in the scientific community that it is true. It is either good or bad evidence depending on the people forming the consensus, but it is evidence. You would do well to recognize this.

The historical evidence of people having met Jesus are the Gospels of the New Testament, and the references to persons in other parts of the New Testament. It would be extraordinary for people to agree as a group to write about a person claimed to be real if that person was not actually real.

No, modern science stands on being testable. By anyone who has the skills, regardless of their religion. The fact that their are over 5 billion people who do not believe your religion should be compelling evidence under your rules. Or the fact that there's 40,000 different sects fighting about what the true faith is..

The bible has no historical evidence. It falls roughly in the same category as the sherock holmes stories. We know the place and some of the back ground historically, but the story and it's results have no place in history. Why? They didn't happen.

Modern science is a very large thing, some of it is testable and some is not.

Quote

By anyone who has the skills, regardless of their religion. The fact that their are over 5 billion people who do not believe your religion should be compelling evidence under your rules. Or the fact that there's 40,000 different sects fighting about what the true faith is..

Strangely, you just affirmed my reasoning that consensus is a type of evidence. It evinces a reasonable conclusion, does it not?

Quote

The bible has no historical evidence

The Bible is a large book, are you saying you don't believe that any of the things that are recounted in the Bible happened?

That's what the stories said. We don't know for sure that the 12 disciples existed, and if they experienced what the Gospels said they experienced. It's strongly suspected that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John were not actually written by Matthew, Mark or John, but written some decades later and attributed to them.

That's what the stories said. We don't know for sure that the 12 disciples existed, and if they experienced what the Gospels said they experienced. It's strongly suspected that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John were not actually written by Matthew, Mark or John, but written some decades later and attributed to them.

Well, do you have evidence that the 12 disciples did not exist? Do you have evidence that the Gospels were not written by people in a position to speak about the events?

Well, do you have evidence that the 12 disciples did not exist? Do you have evidence that the Gospels were not written by people in a position to speak about the events?

Let's start with the Gospel of Mark. The text itself does not indicate that it was written by Mark; in fact, it was not attributed to Mark until sometime in the 2nd century.

There are also suggestions in the texts that the stories were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. If Jesus supposedly died circa 30 CE, then the authors were probably not eye witnesses. Life expectancy was not good in that time and place -- Somewhere in the area of 40 years -- and someone who had been an adult in the supposed time of Jesus would be long dead before the destruction of the Temple.

There's also the heavy supernatural element of the stories. I'm simply not inclined to take as gospel truth (pun definitely intended) a group of stories that talk about virgin births, people coming back from the dead, and zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem during a three-hour darkness.

The historical evidence of people having met Jesus are the Gospels of the New Testament, and the references to persons in other parts of the New Testament. It would be extraordinary for people to agree as a group to write about a person claimed to be real if that person was not actually real.

Do you really not see the circular logic here? You're just saying that Jesus is real because he's in the bible.

Do you really not see the circular logic here? You're just saying that Jesus is real because he's in the bible.

Actually I'm saying:

Jesus is real, because people claim he was real, and wrote books about their claims.It is too extraordinary for me to think that their claims are entirely invalid.So it is reasonable to think that Jesus existed, and that they thought He was divine.

It doesn't mean he actually was divine, I was just establishing that he existed, and that people thought he was divine.

Actually my point is very relevant. I assumed that since you were talking about your favorite fictional character, I could talk about mine.

Oh, then it was a simple mistake. I'm not talking about a fictional character.

Do you see now how your point was irrelevant to this thread?

Jesus, was a fictional character and you are talking about him. Thus you are talking about a fictional character. Unless, you have some proof thousands of archeologists, geologists, and linguists have missed....

Jesus, was a fictional character and you are talking about him. Thus you are talking about a fictional character. Unless, you have some proof thousands of archeologists, geologists, and linguists have missed....

Well you speak of scientists, so I'm sure you know that to prove something takes lots of time and energy. Since this conversation has only been going on for a few hours, how do you expect me to have proved Jesus already?

It's going to take time, and attention, and lots of clarifications and discourse along the way. If you're not up for finding the truth about Jesus with me, then feel free to withhold your comments. I don't mind.

Yes, we want that. And prove it will require more than bible quotes since we atheists don't consider those to be the best evidence.

Ok.

Jesus convinced many people that he was divine. Consensus forms a type of evidence, and therefore there is evidence that Jesus is divine.

Consensus is not evidence. There is a whole religion that denies Jesus ever existed. Oddly enough it is the decendants of the people who would have known whether or not he existed. So, I take it I can safely say that Jesus did not exist, because the consensus among the Jewish is that he did not.

Jesus, was a fictional character and you are talking about him. Thus you are talking about a fictional character. Unless, you have some proof thousands of archeologists, geologists, and linguists have missed....

Well you speak of scientists, so I'm sure you know that to prove something takes lots of time and energy. Since this conversation has only been going on for a few hours, how do you expect me to have proved Jesus already?

It's going to take time, and attention, and lots of clarifications and discourse along the way. If you're not up for finding the truth about Jesus with me, then feel free to withhold your comments. I don't mind.

I guess if you had actually affected me emotionally then I might feel some aggression, but you have not and I do not. So I'll stick to being civil and you can stick to being unnecessarily aggressive. After all, if you have no reason to use your brain, use your mouth or fists!

I guess if you had actually affected me emotionally then I might feel some aggression, but you have not and I do not. So I'll stick to being civil and you can stick to being unnecessarily aggressive. After all, if you have no reason to use your brain, use your mouth or fists!